23 thoughts on “Blayne Tucker: Why I’m Still Voting for LVP

  1. “Sam Houston, whose Bible she used to administer her oath of office, was a champion for Native Americans’ rights.”

    What kind of twisted logic is this? You can’t equate Native American Rights with “LGBT rights.” A group of people is not the same as sexual orientation or gender identification. It is this contorted view of reality that makes Van de Putte wrong for our city, wrong for Texas, and a Catholic in name only.

    • Curtis,

      Race or ethnicity is only one way in which we may define a “group of people”. In the United States, religious minorities constitutes “groups of people” protected from persecution and afforded equal rights under the law. Though I don’t prescribe to the notion that sexual orientation is a choice, one must admit that religion certainly is and thus one can choose to become part of a group and can still demand equal protection under the law.

      You may also be aware that we recognize handicapped citizens as a group, and that group is also afforded the protections against discrimination. We spend millions upon millions of dollars in this city installing ramps, talking crosswalks, and handicap accessible bathrooms. This positive effort we extend to ensure equality for all citizens comes as a financial burden on our city that I and most citizens are more than willing to undertake. This is because we believe in the founding principal on which our nation was conceived, that we are all equal under the law.

      If you cannot see the truth behind this founding principal and how it applies to any and all groups in our society, especially those that are in the minority and suffer from discrimination as a result, then I feel bad for you.

      I’ll leave you with the words of Mildred Loving, who’s fight in the Supreme Court of the United States led to the abolition of all state laws banning interracial marriage. Her case was monumental in recognizing the rights of individuals, regardless of their “group” to marry the people they love.

      http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

  2. LVP has her flaws.

    For example she needs to wrap her head around the concept of municipal broadband along the lines of what Chattanooga has.

    In other words, turn SAABN on for everyone, not just COSA offices, schools, libraries, etc. Like SAWs and CPS, San Antonio needs SAABN/municipal regulated high speed internet for all. It would go a long way toward eliminating the digital divide currently separating the Northside from the rest of town.

    A quick sit down with former D3 Letty Ozuna would bring LVP up to speed. LVP is sharp enough to see how SAABN would become a key attractor for tech to San Antonio and would show the world San Antonio does have progressive vision, despite all of Taylor’s many missteps during her short pinch hit stint as Mayor.

    But yeah, people need to vote and #AnyoneButTaylor is the way to go.

  3. “Taylor is directly responsible for overseeing the loss of two viable forms of public transportation (rideshare and streetcar), while also fostering discrimination against our city’s LGBTQ community. ”

    Statements like this one, that eliminate all context that could turn a simplistic speaking point into a legitimate convereaction is what truly holds our city back from progression.

    If Blayne or any one else that is for a more progressive city truly knew the history of the Eastside and those that came out against Ivy, I don’t think they would be siding with the Calverts, McClendons, and James Howards…investigate the meaning of progress on the Eastside and then tell me that you still want to claim the opinions of those three as your backing argument.

    • Brian,

      “Statements like this one, that eliminate all context that could turn a simplistic speaking point into a legitimate convereaction is what truly holds our city back from progression.”

      What does the above paragraph even mean? “Convereaction” isn’t even a real word.

      Again, you make broad sweeping conclusions and assertions about people individually, and attack my historical perspective, yet you contribute no evidence whatsoever to reinforce your argument.

      I encourage you to write a commentary commentary educating us on the “history” of the Eastside, rather than concluding, without arguing, that I don’t understand same.

      • I have to agree, in part, with Brian. Taylor has taken a lot of undue slack over transportation.

        Streetcar: I’m a proponent for rail but the VIA plan was poor at best. Its route would run along a residentially sparse area (the development along the lower broadway corridor is worth commending but is far from providing the density to make rail viable). Taylor pulled a paltry $32 million in city funding for a project that would cost hundreds of millions when complete. A large portion of that was secured by VIA and the scrapped route would be a starting point for a larger rail system but it was a bad starting point that would likely drain any momentum for a viable rail system in SA.

        Rideshare: As mayor Taylor had one vote on the issue as did every other council member. Replacing Taylor with LVP would have very little impact on this issue if the council as a whole is not behind the issue. Opposition from suburban council members led to the ordinance that Uber & Lyft did not want to comply with, not Taylor alone. What would LVP do differently?

        Other thoughts:

        Vista Ridge Pipeline is a SAWS project. The mayor is one member of the SAWS board. I don’t see this as something LVP or Taylor could have much impact on. If I’m wrong, please explain how.

        Animal Care: This issue has gone from one of little relevance in the 90s to a huge concern and cause to champion for council members across the city. Not really an issue the mayor can single handedly have great impact on. City funding comes from the general fund and is approved by council as a whole. Again, the mayor only has one vote. What would LVP do?

        You write “When in office, city hall will encourage higher education programs for cybersecurity, cultivating a local talent pipeline for the industry’s growth and positioning San Antonio as a national leader.”

        This is already occurring without LVP in office. UTSA & StMu are already developing these programs.

        While you list several accomplishments of LVP in state office, the role of mayor is altogether different. From reading support pieces for both LVP and Taylor it seems to me that boosters on both sides have a gross misunderstanding of what powers a mayor actually holds in this city. SATX operates under a council-manager form of government under which the mayor’s position is more ceremonial than managerial and where the city manger executes many of the functions people are tacking onto the mayor’s office.

        If elected LVP would have a soapbox and a single vote at city hall, a couple seats on the boards for CPS and SAWS, and not much else in terms of real power. SATX is not a strong mayor city like NYC – from the NDO to the police union contracts the mayor executes very little.

        • Assuming arguendo, in that the SA mayor’s position is largely ceremonial, wouldn’t you prefer to have a candidate in place with more connections at the state and national level than one who is entirely disconnected from even her own community? The power of the mayor’s seat rests with the charisma of the office holder and the connections within and outside the community. Taylor doesn’t even have the support of the representatives from her own community/district/precinct, much less the majority of counsel. By all accounts she will be entirely ineffective, and bring no amount of influence beyond a singular vote. In that sense, you are absolutely correct.

          LVP’s influence transcends the municipal landscape, which is precisely why we need her as SA’s next mayor.

          As I previously asked in response to your comment in another article, you mentioned you’re a Mike Villarreal supporter: are you really considering voting for someone who discriminates against the LGBTQ community with that singular vote she exercises?

          • I really like and wholly agree with this statement of yours: “The power of the mayor’s seat rests with the charisma of the office holder and the connections within and outside the community.”

            I may be in the minority in believing this but both Taylor and LVP have shown little charisma throughout the campaign. I am not inspired when listening to them speak and their rhetoric incites absolutely zero excitement in their leadership.

            In the case of LVP this is especially concerning. Her power within the Texas Democratic Party is unquestioned. To that point she has held legislative blue seats for 20+ years – unchallenged by other Dems for a seat that Republicans have no shot at. Her loss for the Lt. Gov. seat highlights this point.

            I can attribute Taylor’s lack of charisma to a lack of experience in high profile (relatively) campaigns. Her limited experience reminds me very much of former Mayor Castro – arguably one of the city’s most effective mayors in recent history. His lack of political experience and connections prior to entering office (even a failed bid for mayor before finally winning election) lends me some hope for Taylor.

            In the end it is Taylor’s pragmatic approach to the city’s development and the utter failure of LVP, despite her decades of experience, to put forth a strong vision for the city that leads me to lean towards Taylor for mayor.

            All else aside – how astonishing is it that the political powerhouse that was LVP is in a runoff with a political unknown who lacks both the political and monetary wealth of the LVP campaign? If this election has shown anything it is just how poor LVP preforms against actual challenges. With her legislative reign over and unlikely to ever return I hold little faith in her ability to draw significantly and meaningfully on her wealth of contacts. The funny thing about political connections is that they seem to fade when political power does.

            Focusing on charisma and connections as some of the biggest strengths of the mayoral seat LVP is underwhelming at best.

  4. “Taylor is directly responsible for overseeing the loss of two viable forms of public transportation (rideshare and streetcar), while also fostering discrimination against our city’s LGBTQ community. ”

    Statements like this one, that eliminate all context that could turn a simplistic speaking point into a legitimate convereaction is what truly holds our city back from progression.

    If Blayne or any one else that is for a more progressive city truly knew the history of the Eastside and those that came out against Ivy, I don’t think they would be siding with the Calverts, McClendons, and James Howards…investigate the meaning of progress on the Eastside and then tell me that you still want to claim the opinions of those three as your backing argument.

    • Brian,

      “Statements like this one, that eliminate all context that could turn a simplistic speaking point into a legitimate convereaction is what truly holds our city back from progression.”

      What does the above paragraph even mean? “Convereaction” isn’t even a real word.

      Again, you make broad sweeping conclusions and assertions about people individually, and attack my historical perspective, yet you contribute no evidence whatsoever to reinforce your argument.

      I encourage you to write a commentary commentary educating us on the “history” of the Eastside, rather than concluding, without arguing, that I don’t understand same.

  5. The fact that she had to get the same person to write both support articles speaks volumes. It also speaks volumes that all this author did was throw stones. He gave us no actual reason to support his candidate.

    The fact is, she did speak out both sides of her mouth and there is an Express article to prove it.

    The fact is, the contracts were at a stand still and were being argued over the radio before the Mayor really had a chance to hit the ground. She brought both sides back and council was 99% of the way to a deal in March when LVP promised the Union something and they decided to take their chances at the election.

    LVP has, generally, taken more credit (or had it attributed to her) for work she didn’t actually do the heavy lifting on. Over the 24 + years she was in office she authored ZERO major bills but certainly “co-authored” tons of them (along with everyone else)

    Look, I voted for LVP for the LT Governor race. She was absolutely the better choice in that election.

    You cannot convince me that she has a vision for this city, though. Being a third generation San Antonian and stealing other people’s good ideas do not make you a leader. They make you someone who is absolutely desperate to keep your empire afloat.

    • Jeff,

      No one from the campaign, including Leticia, prompted me to write either article. The decision to do so was entirely my own.

      You obviously didn’t read the entire article if you are genuinely asserting all I did was “throw stones.” I encourage you to actually read the commentary this time before making unfounded conclusions. I stated plenty of reasons to support LVP.

      You contradict yourself by saying she never authored any bills, but then go on to say she co-authored bills. The paragraph where you assert this is entirely nonsensical.

      In a twist of irony, you then go on to, again, prematurely conclude LVP has no vision, by attacking her purported motivations, and ignoring the arguments proffered in the article.

      In a nutshell, you completely failed to contribute any perspective on why the other candidate would be better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *